CPS informed defendant that his repeated calls and complaints against the Plaintiff-mother, in which there was not a preponderance of evidence to support the complaint, are ‘counting against him’ at this point.

Despite having signed the proposed divorce judgment, defendant filed an answer to the divorce complaint on February 28, 2017, and on March 2, 2017, she filed a response to plaintiff’s motion for entry of proofs and judgment, along with a motion to restore her possession of the marital home. Defendant claimed arguments premised on unconscionability.

Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in failing to determine ALF’s established custodial environment before it modified the custody order. Plaintiff correctly states that the trial court failed to determine the established custodial environment.

Pursuant to the Friend of the Court Act, MCL 552.501 et seq., when a domestic relations motion is submitted to a referee for hearing, a party who files a timely objection to the referee’s recommendation is entitled to have the matter reviewed by the trial court. MCL 552.507(4).

The appeals court concurred with the findings of the trial court that the assertions which provided the basis for defendant’s motion are within the bounds of normal life circumstances typical of 13-year-old teenagers.

The appeals court agreed with the trial court that plaintiff’s conduct in filing for divorce in another county while the Oakland County divorce judgment was still in effect violated that judgment of divorce.

With regard to the trial court’s order concerning preschool placement, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by issuing the order without conducting an evidentiary hearing, making findings of fact, or analyzing the best-interest factors.

The threshold to changing custody, finding a change of circumstance or proper cause are intended to erect a barrier against removal of a child from an established custodial environment and to minimize unwarranted and disruptive changes of custody orders.

This case involves parties who, after living in Michigan for several years, returned to their native country of India in 2014 with their three children. In 2016, plaintiff returned to Michigan and filed for divorce.

In this case, the court is asked whether a presumed father may, in a divorce action, challenge his paternity of a child born during the course of the marriage despite the fact that he did not raise the issue within three years of the child’s birth.

The petitioner has the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the noncustodial parent’s rights is warranted. In order to terminate parental rights, the court must find that the requirements of subsections (a) and (b) are both satisfied.

The Court recognizes that the object in awarding spousal support is to balance the incomes and needs of the parties so that neither will be impoverished; spousal support is to be based on what is just and reasonable under the circumstances of the case.

Given her noncompliance with her service plan and her lack of progress in addressing her serious mental illnesses, the evidence supports the conclusion that there is no reasonable expectation that respondent will be able to provide proper care.

Before modifying an existing custody order, a trial court is required to find that the party seeking to modify the custody order has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, proper cause or change of circumstances as set forth in MCL 722.27.

With respect to a request to modify child custody, a trial court is required to determine whether there is an established custodial environment with one or both parents before making any custody determination.

An established custodial environment is established if over an appreciable time the child naturally looks to the custodian in that environment for guidance, discipline, the necessities of life, and parental comfort.

The 10-year statute of limitations on a claim relating to a property settlement in a judgment of divorce begins to run at the time the claim accrues and that the claim accrues when the money owing under the property settlement comes due.

Plaintiff and defendant were involved in a romantic relationship, but never married. After the relationship ended, plaintiff sued defendant, seeking repayment for $68,784.50 in payments he claims he made for her living expenses.

The trial court’s opinion and order terminated respondent’s parental rights to the minor child under MCL 710.51(6) (failure to comply with a support order for two years or more and failure to visit, contact, or communicate with the child for two years or more).

Plaintiff sought an increase in child support, claiming the defendant-father's income had increased substantially, which constituted a change in circumstances.
In July 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to modify child support. In that motion,...

Defendant and plaintiff are the parents of twin girls who were born in 2007. The parties were never married. They lived together for approximately four years after the children were born, but separated in March 2011. There is no dispute that...

The court held that the trial court properly terminated the father's parental rights to the child where at least one statutory ground for termination was established by clear and convincing evidence and it was in the child's best interests.The...

Any person named in a will or chosen by the court of law to make important decisions for another person is called a guardian. The person who the guardian is responsible for is known as the 'ward' and cannot make certain decisions. Guardians might...